IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.05.2025 Roshan Lal Gumber ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mrs. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the Memo dated 19.09.2007 vide which claim of the petitioner for the salary for discharging the responsibility of the higher office was rejected.

2. Learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, restricts claim to the pay of higher post of Principal (Class-I Officer), for the period he worked i.e. from May, 1998 to 31.08.2005, till he retired and not for purpose of fixation of pension.

3. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Pardeep Narayan, LPA-1629-2023, decided on 06.11.2023, which followed the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dhir, (2017) 9 SCC 337; State of Haryana vs. Sita Ram, LPA-1491-2016, decided on 27.11.2019, against which SLP stands dismissed on 10.10.2022; State of Punjab and another vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395; Raj Kumar Singh vs. Punjab Mandi Board and others, CWP-128-1993, decided on 17.07.2014; Subhash Chander vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) SCT 603 and Pritam Singh Dhaliwal vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (4) SCT 403.

4. In Pardeep Narayan (supra), wherein the petitioner was mandated to perform the duties of a superior position without any entitlement to financial benefits, the Division Bench had propounded thus:

“4. As is evident that the respondent was assigned duties of a higher post by the Department against a vacant post on its own volition, he having no role to play whatsoever in the same, which was for a period of three years on the post of District Commander, till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation, albeit with a caveat that he shall not be entitled to the pay-scale or seniority of the said post.

5. The respondent, who is said to have received commendation certificates in recognition of maintenance of law and order displaying address acuteness, industry and devotion to duty and his active cooperation with Home Guards, Haryana and given cash reward on a number of occasion, Annexures A-1 (colly) appended with the writ petition, vacancy for the higher post being available and he being the senior most in the feeder cadre but ironically instead of considering him for grant of regular promotion, he was made to perform duties of the higher post without any financial benefit thereof. It is a clear case of the Department being in the wrong.

6. It is trite that there is no estoppel against law.

7. An endeavour to canvass non-entitlement to the pay of the higher post on account of the condition, is required to be deprecated, it being exploitary and incorporated by the State, which is in a dominant position. Needless to say that the aforesaid decision was unilateral and therefore not enforceable. 8. Gainful it would be to refer to the dictum in State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dhir, (2017) 9 SCC 337, which is intrinsically applicable to the present facts inasmuch as, the respondent therein was not paid the salary while having made to officiate on a higher post, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court while affirming the order of the Division Bench of the High Court observed that it was incumbent upon the Department to pay him the salary for the period he had worked on the said post, despite the condition imposed in the order that he would do so without any extra emoluments.

9. As a fall out and consequence of the afore-discussion, we find that the respondent was rightly allowed the benefit of salary for the period he performed duties on the higher post, regardless of any condition incorporated as an impediment to his cause.”

5. The pertinent excerpt from the ratio of the law as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Subhash Chander (supra) reads thus:

“12.